"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:IkUse.106076$8S5.79499@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

Don't avoid my question. Answer it. Provide me one example of case law
where
the Declaration of Independence was used as a
primary source of a legal argument, and that said case was won simply
by
virtue of this document. If you say it is a LEGAL document, then prove

it

by
citing the case law.

Why does it need to be in case law?
Your standards are not high enough for me.
You are still arguing against the DoI of the United States of America.

You are a thick one, aren't you? Case law is the very essence in which
legal
principles are tested. If you don't understand this basic idea, then you
are
a hopeless twit.

As someone else
stated before, the real document that first legally recognized us as a
sovergn nation was the Treaty of Paris.

Now you think that we needed other persons to tell us that we were
independent after we said so ourself?

Sigh............

The Treaty of Paris, signed by BOTH the Founders, and the
then Government of Great Britain performed two functions. First, it
officially ended the WoI,

second, it recognized the sovreignty and
legitimacy of the U.S. as an independent nation. And yes, we needed others
to tell us this. Happens all the time. How do you think Israel came into
being? It was roecognized by the rest of the world as an independent
nation.
The Taliban claimed they were the rulers of Afghanistan, and their
legitimate government. We did not recognize them as such, as was the case
with Sudan. By your standards, they did not need anyone to recognize them
as
legitimate. Your argument has no merit.

This, perhaps even more so than our
action during the WOI, is the "very thing" (your words) that made us an
independent nation. To state that I don't "recognize the USA as an
independent nation" is an incredibly foolish notion. I simply am saying
that
the DOI is not legal basis for such recognition.

*****.
Why would the treaty of Paris occurred had the DoI not been written?
Are you now going to ignore an event that actually occurred in the
history
of the USA?

Pay attention ***** for brains.

The ToP would have occurred IRRESPECTIVE of
the DoI!!!!!!!

The ToP ended a war that was started BEFORE the DoI even
existed. You have absolutely zero grasp of American history.

If you can't answer this question, your arguments are moot, and

everything

you have said is nothing more than hyperbole and rhetoric. Now, do try

to

construct a coherent argument without all of that other nonsense.

Your stance which affords no legal merit to the DoI and which ignores it

as

a legal document is quite unpatriotic.

Unpatriotic? That is how you define patriotism? You are a real joke.

Are you still maintaining that the DoI is not a legal document?

Never has been, never will be.

A political document? Yes indeed. An
important historical document? No doubt there.

I think I have had enough of you.

You are nothing more than another nut job
who spouts his mouth off without any sense of facts to back him up.

Having a
reasonable discussion with you is useless.

Off to the dustbin with you. You
are not worth my time or effort.

In our last episode,
<IkUse.106076$8S5.79499@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:

*****. Either the document is legal or illegal.

That is where you are wrong. Many - more than likely most -
documents are neither legal document nor illegal documents.

Now you think that we needed other persons to tell us that we were
independent after we said so ourself?

Yes. That is precisely why the occasional nutcase militia group
that declares itself independent and starts issuing its own
money are the laughing stock of the world. You can call
yourself and independent state until you are blue in the face.
Your declaration doesn't make it so.

*****.
Why would the treaty of Paris occurred had the DoI not been written?

To end the war which began before the Declaration of
Independence. Do you know the date of Paul Revere's ride? The
shot heard 'round the world? The Declaration of Independence?
Which came first?

The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda piece in that
war.

Like most propaganda it was full of lies.

Slaveholders
professed to believe that all men were created equal and that
they had an inalienable right to liberty - but they continued to
own slaves.

Now you might argue that the propaganda helped the
Americans win the war. But the war came first, not the
declaration. The war made the Treaty of Paris. The Declaration
of Independence did not.

Your stance which affords no legal merit to the DoI and which
ignores it as a legal document is quite unpatriotic.

If you mean that I don't support slavery, then yes, I am quite
unpatriotic

- like my ancestors who rode with John Brown, who
fought for Illinois, who were abducted to Klan crossburnings in
the attempt to intimidate them.

Are you still maintaining that the DoI is not a legal document?

It does not now and never did have any legal force.

It was not
law. It is not law now. It is not a legal document. It was
war propaganda.